Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 2, 2009 12:42pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

A copyright notice requires a copyright symbol (©). The word "copyright", or a "C" in parentheses, are not considered valid.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 2, 2009 12:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

Video-Cellar said that both the word "Copyright" and the copyright symbol are acceptable, and that (C) is invalid.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 2, 2009 12:59pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

That's not my understanding, but I wouldn't argue with VC. I'll look this up later.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 2, 2009 2:07pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=254466

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 2, 2009 2:08pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

I find varying information on different websites, including some that say the word "copyright" or the abbreviation "COPR." are acceptable. However, in The Copyright Handbook by Stephen Fishman,

"..a valid copyright notice contains three elements: (1) the copyright symbol, (2) the publication date, and (3) the copyright owner's name."

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full text.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 2, 2009 2:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

What is a copyright notice?
A copyright notice consists of the copyright symbol (©) or the word “copyright”, the name of the copyright owner, and the year of publication.

http://www.copyrightfoundation.org/faq

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 2, 2009 3:06pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

A section in copyright.gov seems to indirectly confirm this:

§ 202.2 Copyright notice

It would depend on the statute in 1935, but "Copyright" and "Copr." are listed as common missing "necessary elements."

This post was modified by jonc on 2009-08-02 22:06:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fact_Checker Date: Aug 5, 2009 3:08am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices / 1935 statute requirements

Regarding "It would depend on the statute in 1935":

To see what the U.S. copyright law read for the past century, anyone can visit http://law.copyrightdata.com

Use the pull-down menu to select the date range that you wanted. Perhaps I'm sounding like a broken record by always bringing up the same site. However, the information being discussed is there.

In a post yesterday, I said it would be great to know where to find the foreign-country statutes for this period. However, for the American historic statute texts, they are in one place online.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 5, 2009 6:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices / 1935 statute requirements

Thanks, that could be useful.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Ganbachi Date: Aug 3, 2009 3:26am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

I have a tv show on dvd that just says "All Rights Reserved - 1996" with the name of the production company underneath. Would that be PD since it doesn't say copyright anywhere? If so, why would they make that mistake? It's not that difficult to put a copyright notice on your product!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jonc Date: Aug 3, 2009 6:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

There are many films in this archive that fell into the public domain because the owner failed to provide a valid notice. "All rights reserved" would not have been valid in works prior to 1989. In 1996, no notice would be required. In fact, from March 1989, neither notice nor registration is required.

This post was modified by jonc on 2009-08-03 13:45:49

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Aug 3, 2009 3:52am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

The copyright notice requirement was taken away after 1989. Since then, a work is effectively protected as soon as it is created and after publication even with no notice or registration. But without a notice or registration it is hard to protect your copyright and prove claims.

Generally, For things released before 1 March 1989, the copyright symbol, the word "copyright" or abreviation are acceptible in notices. "(c)" isn't. "All rights reserved" is optional. The notice can be written as a sentence and it should be on one line or in close proximity to avoid confusion. It only becomes invalid if there is confusing information. For example the attached notice on "Glorifying The American Girl" is invalid because it contains too much information between the copyright date and the owning company, causing confusion. As the law sees it, a "reasonable person" would not be able to tell if this film's copyright was owned by "Monta Bell" "Long Island Studios" "Western Electric System" "Paramount Famous Lasky Corp" "Adolph Zuker" "The MPPDA" or "The National Board of Review".

Attachment: copy_notice_eg.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Aug 2, 2009 2:11pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Invalid copyright notices for Laurel & Hardy?

Perhaps he elaborates on this by explaining that the word "Copyright" is as valid as the symbol.